FRAUD! I Need HELP in New Hampshire!!! (Boots on the Ground, Please!)

[IdaBriggs]

Okay folks, I have been doing some analysis of the voting trends for the New Hampshire stuff because of the excellent work by Faun Otter in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=11874

To sum up my understanding, the exit polls CONSISTENTLY BEING WRONG IN BUSH'S FAVOR IS MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

I picked New Hampshire because of two things -- we "won it", and the exit polls were wrong by 15%.

Out of the 300 counties, ONLY SIX did NOT show an increase in voter turnout: the increased turnout is NOT a myth.

ONLY FIVE had more votes for THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES in 2004 than they they did in 2000 DESPITE this increased turnout. Totals for these FIVE wards were 2004 Other = 24 vs 2000 Other = 10; All other 295 showed LOWER VOTES (and minuscule percentages) for Third Party Candidates. This is NOT a Nader issue.

71 of the 300 are the ones I'm most concerned with because Kerry LOST to Bush by a GREATER PERCENTAGE than Gore did in 2000. In all 229 other wards -- even where Kerry LOSES the district -- his numbers INCREASE percentage wise.

There are obviously some variables that we need to figure out, which is why I'm asking for some "boots on the ground" help in New Hampshire. Please go look at the DATA on http://www.invisibleida.com/New_Hampshire.htm and let me know if this makes sense --

A= Under 200 Votes (3 of 19 or 16%)
B= 201 - 500 Votes (1 of 30 or 3%)
C= 501 - 1000 Votes (6 of 43 or 14%)
D= 1001 - 2000 Votes (11 of 77 or 14%)
E= 2001 - 5000 Votes (39 of 109 or 36%)
F= 5001 - 10000 Votes (6 of 15 or 40%)
G= Over 10001 Votes (5 of 7 or 71%)

which I translate to BIG CITIES IN NEW HAMPSHIRE GOT MORE CONSERVATIVE? I don't think so.

I think starting with Benton in Grafton is probably the best way: its small, and there were only 178 voters this year (compared to 117 in 2000). They did NOT follow trend, and in fact, the town went CRAZY with a 10% increase in Bush voters. Does this make any sense to anyone familiar with the area?

I need some people to make some phone calls to the voters in those precincts, which means getting the voter call sheets from the Democrats in New Hampshire. Help me out here, people -- I think we can PROVE some fraud! (Benton would be the easiest -- if more than 60 people say they voted for Kerry, it should be OVER....)

Mods, I'll be posting this in several forums, since I'm not sure where people are hanging out these days....

[ClassWarrior]

1. PM TruthIsAll. He (she?) can help you crunch the numbers.

NGU.

[AndyTiedye]

6. I'd Like to Hear from TIA

So did the undecideds really try to break for the challenger, but got
Diebolded, or must we assume that the undecided voters will go to the
Repubs from now on?

I never believed we'd get a majority of the undecided voters, but
I never expected Booosh to get ALL of them.

Of course, TIA's mathematical models assume honest elections.

[democraticinsurgent]

7. TIA posted yesterday

and is certain the election was stolen.

[AndyTiedye]

9. Did you bookmark it?

Search is turned off.

[LisaLynne]

2. It would be great if we could prove it!

Any fraud -- we need to call this election into question because * is already claiming a mandate for everything he's been doing and that is dangerous for the entire world.

[bullimiami]

3. brilliant ida

we would be well served auditing this election and using the evidence to secure the voting systems in the democratic states. if not, I think in 2 years we will lose more seats in congress and possibly give them the supermajority in the senate which will leave us powerless.

[Dinger]

4. We Have TO Move FAST, Before Votes Are Certified

[hedda_foil]

5. Ida, please check your inbox.

hedda

[Jasper 91]

8. I suggested the same thing

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=17201&mesg_id=19769

I was thinking about auditing Ohio and Florida , but your idea is better , focusing on smaller areas at a time . I think we should audit all areas that we know are historically largely Democratic but have had apparent huge surges of support for Bush , regardless of whether Kerry still received more votes in that area . The fact that Bush picked up votes in Democratic areas may prove most telling , of this stolen election .

It would also be useful if everyone checked out their local , precincts and counties , to see if the reported results match your take on the demographics of your area . Local people would have the best sense of the feeling on the ground , and if the results are completely 'W'rong , it should be patently apparent to them . For example , on Morning Sedition's blog yesterday , a woman was saying that the results in Duval County , Florida ,did not tie in with the make-up of the electorate . It is made up of 72% African Americans , yet the reported votes were 218,000 for Bush but only 157,000 for Kerry . Exit polling showed that only 13% of African Americans in Floridia were voting for Bush , so how can this huge discrepancy , possibly be a true ?

Perhaps , those who still have the energy to fight , could check their local results , and report back on this thread if anything doesn't ring true . Then perhaps we can focus on those areas for auditing .

I don't want to concede , tempting though it might be to just curl up into a ball . So anyone with the energy , the will and the time , please check . We must act quickly .

[jobycom]

10. You're onto something, but one wor of caution on your terminology

This is just so you don't get tuned out before you get started. You say that it is a mathematical impossibility that the exit polls were all wrong consistently in Bush's favor, but that's wrong. Exit polls are only as good as their sample models, and if all the sample models, which would be based on the same set of assumptions, made the same mistake in choosing the samples, then they could all be wrong in the same direction. We aren't talking about odds here, we are talking about polling science.

In other words, if I assume for my sample, say, that 15% of the voter turnout will be African American, I will calculate out my exit poll data accordingly. If only 12% turn out, then I will be consistently wrong in the same direction across the board. That's too simplistic an example, but the formulas are based on assumptions based on polling and past voting histories, and if there is misassumption, it can make everything off in the same direction.

I believe something funny happened, so don't take this as me saying Bush the elections were honest. I'm just pointing out that if you tell a journalist or an elections supervisor or a pollster that this error was mathematically impossible, they will tune you out. Just present what you've got here, and let them chew on it. There are still some journalists who can add, and some who still want to be Woodward or Bernstein. Not many, but some. Find one.

Or better yet, let's get Skinner to put all this findings in one place so journalists can come here and chew on it. They read this page to see what we are thinking, and some read it looking for a scoop. Keep posting here, the world is watching.